What do you think of this? Is there another reason to exist other than our own feelings? — existentialcrisis

I think emotions play a large part in our reason to persist in existing, but they can also end it: suicide. If someone is feeling so depressed, anxious, or angry at existence they can end their own life. They have domain over that, not anyone else. What I find interesting is that while emotions may have significance in making life what is called 'life.' But, I subscribe also to the belief of Friedrich Nietzsche's Will to Power. Every living thing has the desire and will to survive and move with life, and this is described by the Will to Power. Some humans want power in material form. Some humans want power in the form of knowledge and wisdom. Some humans want power in the form of overcoming suffering. Some humans want power in form of helping others and making an influence.

I subscribe to the view that life is meaningless until you make meaning for yourself. Emotions play a part in life but also this desire to survive, live, and grow in some way. Everyone wants to grow in some way and at some point. Doesn't matter who the person is, and it doesn't matter what form it takes, there is always this desire to live, grow, or even the action of exerting power by taking your own life.

What is the reason for our existence? — existentialcrisis

I have no idea what the reason for our existence is. No one can give a clear answer. There have been many views, but no definite clear answer. In my opinion, our 'reason for existence' is nothing. I feel as it is different for each person based on the view that life is meaningless, and the individual gets to decide, first, whether they want to live or commit suicide based on this belief about life (referencing Albert Camus's philosophy in The Myth of Sisyphus - this is the subject of the book). From here, the human, if choosing to live, can then make their own meaning themselves, and themselves alone. No form of suffering can take away this person's beliefs, perceptions, and interpretations of the meaning of their life and the reason for their existence in their mind.

For instance, a child is brought into the world, recognizes his existence, and then decides to live or not. Once the child is older, in its teenage years, he will confront this problem again. Once it's an adult, the same. Therefore, the reason for an individual existing could start being explained or questioned here. But the reason for the existence of the human race appears to be too grand for a human to ever know. The problem of God comes to mind here. No one truly knows if God exists or if he doesn't exist. They have faith in one side of the argument or not, but there is no evidence. In my opinion, logic doesn't help either case, it's actually a waste of time for the God existing or not arguments. It helps a human try and tackle the problem, but what human has tackled it? If there is a God, then maybe he has an answer? If there isn't a God, then maybe our existence is a coincidence? Maybe there are multiple universes going on? Maybe we are merely in a complex program? Maybe we are all part of a dream? No one really knows the answer to this question. So it is extremely hard...

Have you read existential philosophy? Philosophers in this camp such as Friedrich Nietzsche, Albert Camus, Jean Paul-Sartre, Fydor Dostoevsky, Soren Kierkegaard, and many others present these questions in their works and their beliefs on the matter. This is my favorite camp of philosophy and it constantly deals with the human experience of existing, whether life has meaning or not, and what to do...

The human race is so small and insignificant and in x amount of years we will all be forgotten and nothing, in the end, will matter at all. So why does it matter? — existentialcrisis

Well apparently with your omniscience you qualify as some sort of god so there's that. /sly

Interesting point. I agree, taking a position on whether the human race is small or large, as well as significant or not, is presuming that you know all of this in relation to other races in the universe or if we are alone.

The intellect determines what matters, emotions are not an essential part of the process, only the intellect's ability to understand the concept of something "mattering". Characterisations, descriptions and categorisations are determined by the intellect, their or their species' significance or insignificance, their smallness or self-importance. Basically, the reason for our existence is whatever I believe it is and that's what meaning is. There's no atom comprising meaning that contradicts the beliefs of the intellect, the intellect can only be challenged by another intellect but effectively even that is of no consequence.

the intellect can only be challenged by another intellect but effectively even that is of no consequence. — Judaka

If so, what gives any 'intellect' of any persuasion or level any meaning beyond itself? Feeling, as the OP states?

The cycle of life is to be born, survive, reproduce, and then die. — existentialcrisis

I prefer to look at it as: nonexistence [unknown duration], existence [briefly], and then, nonexistence [eternally].

Emotion is what makes our lives 'matter'. — existentialcrisis

I'm not sure about this but I've always looked at emotions as reactions and being reactions, value precedes them.

The intellect only needs to convince themselves, to provide reason sufficient for their own belief. Meaning is always based on establishing prerequisites for assertions and then making assertions. Thus the assertions are not random or meaningless but are justified by the prerequisites being met. The complex layers of meaning are generally far too difficult for any foreign agent to untangle. Provided the intellect has convinced themselves, that's sufficient, convincing other people is an entirely different discussion. The process is absolutely influenced by emotion but I don't think it's hinged on it, the process is logic-based.

I can't answer your "What is the meaning of our existence?" question.

However I can say that I broadly agree with you - just replace the 'emotions' with 'experience', and don't equate 'motivation' to 'meaning'. Humans are more than just their emotions and the experience of being human also includes things like thought, sensation, and instinct as well as emotions.

The sum of that human experience is basically the only thing that is real to us. You can choose to assign a meaning to that or not. Everything comes through the lens of that human experience - without it there is no perspective from which to interpret the universe. None of this has anything to do with a grand purpose though.

I would like to add to your view the question " why are emotions tuned the way they are ? ".

There is a taxonomy to emotions. Some of them are deep rooted and served survival purposes(cooperation instincts, fear of failure,...) and some of them are tuned by experiences of our life(childhood traumas,hopeful dreams about our future,..).

I think every emotion has a reason for existing. So, human "emotional anatomy" suggests a purpose, a meaning.

["Emotional anatomy" to all its complexity ] and [ purpose to all its complexity ] are opposite sides of a coin...

Yes, I agree, emotions are what really matters. The Philosophical Zombie argument tells us that without emotions, there would be no consciousness, and without consciousness there would be no life. Emotions are not something we can conceptualize, we can not turn an emotion into a concept such that others can know our emotional experience. The only way to know them is to experience / feel them, and indeed without emotion there would be no feeling, and hence no experience, so there would be no impetus to life. Emotions are ultimately painful or pleasurable. We are averse to pain, and attracted to pleasure, so this , I believe, creates meaning.

Emotions make life meaningful, and we have meaningful interactions with other people and animals that we recognize also posses emotions. It is the emotional empathy that makes the interaction meaningful. The quality of interaction is diminished when interacting with something that is not emotional. Seems to be a sensible move to attribute emotions to all living creatures and hence improve the quality of our life by enriching our interactions with them, in my opinion.

Is there another reason to exist other than our own feelings? — existentialcrisis

Yes, I agree, emotions are what really matters. — Pop

I really think emotions do not play such a crucial part in the big picture of things.

Consider an Earth without animals. Only the physical phenomena of the ecosystem and floral life (forests, trees, plants). In this senario there is definitely life going on.There is life and death, reproduction, evolution, etc. Every part has a role in this global life. On the other hand there are no emotions.( one can extend the definition of "emotion" and argue that plants can have emotion too, but I assume you are referring to animal-like emotions)
edit: When we add animal life we are just creating a larger circle of global life in which again every part has a role. Emotions are just a regulatory and optimization mechanism of some parts.

The Philosophical Zombie argument tells us that without emotions, there would be no consciousness, and without consciousness there would be no life. — Pop

The same logic can be applied here. Plants and cells : they are alive so ,according to the above, they must have consciousness and emotions. Do you agree with this ? Again, we are pushing the boundaries of the definitions, which is very interesting, but I'll stop here because the post is about human emotions.

The same logic can be applied here. Plants and cells : they are alive so ,according to the above, they must have consciousness and emotions. Do you agree with this ? — aylon

Yes, this is how I see it. Dopamine, melatonin, serotonin, and other neurotransmitters have been isolated in plants. There is no evidence, that I am aware of, that they do not possess emotions of some kind.

anyone that has locked eyes with another across the room knows,
that is the most powerful energy that exists

No, emotions are not all that matters, or make life worth living. When you are a child, emotions are the only way you assess the world. But as you grow older, you start to find rational links that many times defy your emotions. You learn to make decisions despite your emotions when you can clearly tell it is a better idea.

How do I know this? Well, I have suffered from depression for much of my life. Not "sadness", but there are times when I feel...nothing. I gain no pleasure from activities I normally enjoy. I feel no empathy or care for anything in the world. So how do I function? By rational choice. Sure, I may not feel like I enjoy my work that day, but I do it because I know I need my employer to see I am stable so that I can make money. Yes, I could sit on my couch and zone out for hours without a care in the world. But I rationally know that's not good. So I get up and I do "something".

When your life is run by emotions, then you are a slave to them. You are an animal that merely exists for the chemical whims of your pleasure and pain centers of the brain. But you can be more than that as a human being. You can think long term. You can make actions despite your body feeling nothing, or even screaming not to do it. When you feel nothing, you have to come to a conclusion on your own why your life is worth living. I have. It is worth living, simply to be. Even if one day I lost all emotion, and it never came back, I would still choose to live. I would still choose morals, and try to live a good path. Not because of feelings, but because I know what is right, and that my life is worth living.

No, emotions are not all that matters, or make life worth living. — Philosophim

I really think emotions do not play such a crucial part in the big picture of things. — aylon

Humans are more than just their emotions — Regretomancer

The process is absolutely influenced by emotion but I don't think it's hinged on it, the process is logic-based. — Judaka

Emotion is what makes our lives 'matter'. — existentialcrisis

I think there is an equivocation at the heart of this thread in the word 'matters'

The word can mean 'is cared about' and the word can mean 'has important effects regarding'.

The defenders of the the idea that only emotions matter (cough cough) are thinking in the first definition.
The only reason I care about marriage, a good job, understanding something is due to emotions. In a sense it is tautological. Care is a kind of emotion (in the sense being used here). I care about X, means I have emotions regarding it.

The people who are arguing against emotions being the reason that anything matters are, I think, more aligned with the second meaning. Of course the logical analytical part of the mind matters. It affects so much of what we do, think, decide, create....etc. It matters. It plays a powerful role.

And what that facility does matters to us (in the first sense of being emotionally important or is something we care about) precisely because it matters (in the second sense of has a core role) in all sorts of facets of out lives.

I do think there may be some fundamental disagreements between the two sides of this debate, but at the very least it is being exacerbated by the equivocation.

It wouldn’t hurt to bring in Heidegger’s notion of befindlichkeit, which has variously been translated as attunement , mood, affect and feeling. Heidegger says there is no and can be no experience that is not affective, because affect is the way that the world matters to us. Thus there is no split between what is supposedly rational and what is affective. Things always matter to us, are relevant to us, are what we care about in some fashion or other. Of course , for many theorists following Heidegger emotions are the ‘reason any matters to us’ not because it is some evolutionarily mechanism added on to a supposed separate cognition apparatus or process, but because it is pre-supposed in any notion of experiencing.

Even those who don’t go as far as Heidegger in integrating affect and cognition argue that affect is indispensable:

The emotion theorist Matthew Ratcliffe says :

“ “...affect binds us to things, making them relevant and ‘lighting up' aspects of the world in such a way as to call forth actions and thoughts. Without the world-structuring orientation that they provide, we are disoriented, cut off from the world, which no longer solicits thoughts and actions and is consequently devoid of value. In effect, [William] James is saying that our very sense of reality is constituted by world-orienting feelings that bind us to things .” (Ratcliffe 2005)

“ The absence of emotion comprises a state of cognitive and behavioural paralysis rather than fully functional cognition, stripped of ‘mere' affect. A phenomenology without affect is a phenomenology that guts the world of all its significance. The experienced world is ordinarily enriched by the feelings that we sew into it, that imbue it with value and light it up as an arena of cognitive and behavioural possibilities. So cognition without affect is not, according to James, in any sense complete. It is an extreme privation that strips the world of alll meaning.”

What do you think of this? Is there another reason to exist other than our own feelings? — existentialcrisis

I think you are pretty much right.

i was too lazy to read the whole thing. I'll read the whole thing in 2 to 3 hours. I read the last 2 paragraphs and the OP's topic is on point. The concept is counter-intuitive and intuitive depending on the person. One thing though assuming you didn't mention this. Mathematics and even Physical force is neccesary in some cases and any one who wants to learn mathematics can obtain that goal through self-doubt or even self-hatred. The only way to be happy is to miss details.

Is duty an emotion? Is fairness a feeling? I might agree that part of what is important to us, what matters, is "what we want to do and what we don't". But to limit what interests us to emotions is to cheapen our motivations and remove our reasoning altogether.

Having the ability to feel sad or happy about something allows us to view things as good or bad depending on the way it makes us feel. — existentialcrisis

Even as an intuitive theory of moral guidance in judging good and bad, "the way it makes us feel" seems arbitrary and, I want to say, left to a state of nature. In any event, even if we do have moments where we are left without guidance, most of our actions are simply following rules and standards ordinarily unquestioned--beyond that, our actions morally define us. What would it look like to have an emotional state always deciding what is good or bad? If you are angry and hate something, does that automatically make it bad? For everyone?

Do you make a distinction between feeling and emotion? Feeling is another way of talking about the way something appears to me , the fact that any concept is understood from someone’s point of view. Awareness always implies a ‘mineness’ to experience. In this sense, feeling isn’t an irrational or a-rational ‘seasoning’ added to rational thought. It is what orients meaning. Feeling is much more than simply good and bad valence.

Emotions are the reason that anything matters

It appears to be a rather complicated issue, emotions and mattering but I find it helpful to distinguish between two kinds of significance/importance (mattering) viz. subjective significance and objective significance although it appears the the boundary between the two is blurred.

Subjective significance is, as the description suggests, peculiar to an individual. For example there are people who collect mementos, usually inexpensive small objects they pick up during their travels to distant lands. These objects matter to folks who keep them because they would like to be reminded of the amazing experiences they've had. They loved the times they spent in those places and that's what gives the souvenirs their significance. To someone who didn't share the experience, these souvenirs wouldn't matter at all. In short, subjective significance has emotional roots.

Objective significance is a different animal. Take for example a battery-operated watch on somebody's wrist. The battery matters for without it the watch won't run. I'm sure we could scale up this analogy to include the entire universe itself or even scale it down to as small as possible and the message is still clear: an objective significance transcends emotions in the sense that emotions are irrelevant i.e. no matter how one feels about it, whether one assigns subjective significance to it or not, it matters.

Remember how I talked about "...the boundary between the two is blurred." I mean two things by this:

1. People seem to be drawn to objective significance i.e. they're likely to invest, big time, emotionally in it. An odd state of affairs comes to be - we're infused with passion both in subjective and in objective significance. The difference is that in the former, emotions are the reason why things matter and in the latter, things matter at a non-emotional level but that evokes feelings.

2. What started off as something of subjective significance turns out to be of great objective significance and what we thought of as possessing huge objective significance is later discovered to be of subjective significance.

I'm not willing to go so far as make a value judgment on subjective and objective significance and assert that one is greater/lesser than the other because of "1. People seem to be drawn to objective significance i.e. they're likely to invest, big time, emotionally in it" and this, if nothing else, bespeaks an innate, intuitive, grasp of not just what matters but what should matter. What should matter exists in a world beyond our own and remembering that objective significance, to discover it, assuming it even exists at a level that satisfies us, is far from being a walk in the park, the least we can do is give our nod of approval to subjective significance for the reason that it acknowledges the role of emotions in things that matter or rather the things that should matter.

I've dissected what matters/things that matter (significance) into two viz. 1. subjective significance and 2. objective significance and these two, as explained above, differ in terms of which of the two - significance or emotions - causally precedes the other. That out of the way, take note of the fact that in both cases, emotions are involved. In conversational mode, I'd be saying, "you're going to get emotional with things that matter (both subjective and objective significance)". Our situation then is analogous to being told that there are buried treasures of gold and silver coins [things that matter (both objective and subjective significance respectively), given a metal detector (emotions), and told to look for it (if we so desire of course). Quite naturally, every time our metal detector beeps (we experience emotions), we'll come to the conclusion that we've discovered a buried treasure (things that matter). To get right to the point, emotions are good at sniffing out things that matter/what matters (significance) whether of subjective or objective significance.

The mystery in all this is whether the distinction subjective and objective significance is real or just a figment of my imagination? The metal detector (emotions) can't tell the difference between gold and silver coins (between objective and subjective significance respectively). What if, and this is at the heart of the matter (at least for me), everything that we get emotional about (metal detector beeps) possesses profound objective subjective significance (buried treasure of gold)?

“ Objective significance is a different animal. Take for example a battery-operated watch on somebody's wrist. The battery matters for without it the watch won't run.”

Yes, but this statement must be thought by someone. It doesn’t rest in some eternal space of fact. When it is thought, it is thought with certain aims and purposes in mind, and arises within a certain context. There is always a reason why it should occur to someone at a certain point in time that a watch needs a battery to run , and that reason pertains to their concerns at that point in time. The particular felt significance the fact has to them cannot be separated from the fact itself. The way a word concept matters to us not only colors but co-defines the very sense of the word. Wittgenstein shows how the use of a word in activity with others determines its meaning. That implies affective as well
as ‘rational’ sense. If I think of something that doesn’t matter to me, it’s not mattering is still an attitude I take toward it , a way in which it affects me.

Do you make a distinction between feeling and emotion? — Joshs

I'm not sure it matters here. If we say that emotions are like hunger, anger, love, etc. and that "feelings" are our emotions about situations, statements, opinions, etc., we are still removing things that matter to us like, interest, need, fairness, right/wrong.

Feeling is another way of talking about the way something appears to me — Joshs

I would say if you have an opinion about a situation, it muddles the discussion to say that is "the way something appears to me" as that gives the impression that this is something internal to only you, that you hold that opinion beyond our public language and the distinctive forms of our concepts. Adding that "feeling" is another way of talking about what is basically solipsism only makes the matter worse, as then it is reduced to an unintelligible position with the assumption that it is as valid as a rational discussion. You can of course feel however you want and claim that your point of view need not have any justification other than it is yours, but that narrows the grounds for agreement and isolates you to taking a stand without any responsibility to others by simply maintaining something private, i.e., its a copout.

any concept is understood from someone’s point of view. — Joshs

Concepts (action, knowledge, an apology, etc.) are public and so understanding is not from a "point of view" so much as, say, two people getting clear about a particular context and the sense in which a concept is being used; of course we can have a position on that ("That wasn't the act of firing the pistol, it was a mistake.") but our position ("feelings" if you like) does not dictate the grounds of that discussion.

Awareness always implies a ‘mineness’ to experience. — Joshs

Saying "experience" is mine implies that it is not also others as well. Granted, you are you, in the sense of being separate, but to say your experience is different than any others' is to claim a ground where you can not be reached or that you speak uniquely by the shear fact that you claim an (imagined) quality for your self. Now this is not to say that "awareness" is not different than being unaware, say, of the implications and consequences of what you do and say, and that you can't deliberately decide what expressions you commit yourself to, or to consciously enter into a contract with society regarding justice, etc. But our being aware does not imply (ever) that the experience is yours, only that the choice (or not) and the responsibility for the consequences are yours to make and suffer.

Yes, but this statement must be thought by someone. It doesn’t rest in some eternal space of fact. When it is thought, it is thought with certain aims and purposes in mind, and arises within a certain context. There is always a reason why it should occur to someone at a certain point in time that a watch needs a battery to run , and that reason pertains to their concerns at that point in time. — Joshs

Part of this confusion ("must" 'always") is the idea that everything that is said is connected to a thought (or feeling) or to some intention. Our reasons for saying something most of the time are only developed afterwards when we are asked why we said (or did) something outside the ordinary course of a concept within a certain situation (see J.L. Austin). If I say "A watch needs a battery to run", that is strange enough to elicit such responses as "Don't you know there are spring-powered watches?" or an explanation such as "What I mean is that everyone needs energy to stay productive, so take care of yourself." Someone is responsible for a statement--it is not connected to an internal (hidden) cause (this is not to say that people do sometimes consciously try (intend) to say something particular--controversial, deliberate, etc.). And, though I don't think this is the place for this discussion, facts do exist apart from us. That is the allure of them--that the methods of science remove our responsibility for them.

The particular felt significance the fact has to them cannot be separated from the fact itself. — Joshs

Again, saying the significance of a fact is "felt" by us reduces our relationship to facts to a private, non-rational, personal connection. It may be true that we feel a certain way about a fact, but hardly always, and never necessarily. Most times we simply accept the larger paradigm that gives the fact significance in a scientific theory--doubting a fact/theory is not a feeling; it's a claim.

The way a word concept matters to us not only colors but co-defines the very sense of the word. Wittgenstein shows how the use of a word in activity with others determines its meaning. That implies affective as well as ‘rational’ sense. — Joshs

This is so close I would only clarify that "us" is not "me". The way a concept matters is baked into the (most times unspoken) criteria people have developed through the ways we live for identity, performance, judgment, consequences, etc., for that concept. Our feelings do not change that, though our actions might (including claiming only a personal connection to language). Wittgenstein uses these criteria to show that our concepts are flexible and intelligible in different particular senses, but there is not a "meaning" that is determined by (connected to) "use" so much as if we look at the use of a concept in a certain (present) context we can see the particular sense of that concept there (see my post on Witt's "use" of his lion quote). Again, if that is not assumed, accepted without concern, we must turn to the Other and asks them to explain what (external) sense they were using.

Our lives as a whole seem to be insignificant yet our emotions change this as we are able to stay in the present reality and have our own meaning of life regardless of the grand scheme of things.

What do you think of this? Is there another reason to exist other than our own feelings? — existentialcrisis

I think you make the mistake of separating 'our lives' from 'our emotions'. They are part of the same whole. Consider a dog, who has both but lacks the brainpower and language to conceptualise as you do. The dog's life doesn't need a meaning. It is simply driven by its instincts, which are an expression of its genetic programming, which is geared to its survival. This explains why we similarly exist - our evolution is just a few steps more sophiosticated than the dog's. If you want to consider 'meaning' you need to clarify that vague term. By 'meaning' I'm guessing you're asking 'What should we do with our lives, given that our survival is taken care of?"

The dog doesnt have that problem (luckily for it!) The answer is different for different people. My advice is to look around and see whom you admire. There will be someone. They will perhaps have put into practice a set of priorities that will suit you..

“ though I don't think this is the place for this discussion, facts do exist apart from us.” I suspect that everything relevant to this discussion and the disagreement between us rests on whether one is a realist or a radical
constructivist. I don’t think anything I say about the relationship between self and other , affect and intention, or the basis of norms and practices would be coherent to you if you believe it makes any sense to talk about a world independent of out construals of it , that our models correspond to. Yes, the world that I perceive offers accordances and constraints, as Jj Gibson points out(I can make up any old world I want to, but only certain construal will work, will be pragmatically useful in relation to my own goals and prior understanding. The affordance s and constraints emerge in relation to my ongoing cognitive
processes, not independently of them. On the other hand , if you can support Kuhn and Feyerabend against Popper on the theory-dependence of fact, and the enactivists on the basis of knowledge in structural coupling between embodied system and environment, then there are points of agreement between us.

Here’s more on my position concerning how the social basis of language should be understood. If you glance at the paper , you’ll notice that I locate my position to the ‘left’ of social constructionism. If you are a metaphysical realist , then your position is to the ‘right’ of social constructionism. I think that’s a huge gap to cross in discussion.

https://www.academia.edu/1342908/Embodied_Perception_Redefining_the_Social

quote="TheMadFool;483467"]The mystery in all this is whether the distinction subjective and objective significance is real or just a figment of my imagination?[/quote]

As I said differently above, Witt would say that the way a concept matters (its importance, significance)--publically as it were, not to us personally--is baked into the criteria of what counts for us in sorting out all its distinctions in different contexts from our lives and living: for identity, performance, judgment, consequences, etc.. Our personal feelings do not change that (say, each time). We may feel a particular way, and so say something based on that (or without thinking), but that does not change the concept and the senses in which it is used in contexts, or the way those are discussed (their/our rational).

Can two people, sharing the ‘same’ context of use, still end up with slightly different sense of meaning of a word? Does not a single individual, alone, in using the ‘same’ word over and over, end up slightly changing the sense of meaning of that word ever so slightly from day to day?
Does such a claim necessarily belong to a solipsist, idealist or rationalist thinking, or can there be a more
immediate and intimate site of the social than that of identically ‘shared’discursive. meaning arising from the the ‘same’ social milieu?

if you believe it makes any sense to talk about a world independent of out construals of it — Joshs

This is a misunderstanding. When I said "facts do exist apart from us", I meant: apart from us personally--our feelings about them--not, as apart from humans in (or in relation to) a metaphysical "world" or "reality". Though my point that facts are based in method doesn't mean that we can't have an opinion about how the science was done, or also about the paradigm they are a part of--but the rationality of that discussion is its own matter (as Kuhn, etc. discuss).

In briefly reviewing the essay: I do like the idea of an "event", which brings in the context Witt focuses on as well as Nietzsche's sense of the historicity of our concepts; I believe I studied someone French in the '90s--DeLeuze? And I'll grant there is change and extension in the sense of our concepts as well (over time; or in the moment, along certain possibilities), but I still think there is a confusion here between the personal and the public in terms of control, "intention", "meaning", etc. The explanation seems tied in knots to hang on to the idea of something unique and ever-present and "affected" to/by us, compared to Witt's (and Emerson's, and Austin's) idea that we mostly don't (and don't need to) assert ourselves into our expressions--not everything is an "event". In response to "cognitive and affective processes ...to situate or attune the context of our conceptual dealings with the world." I would say we usually only situate ourselves and examine the context of the concepts we use ("our conceptual dealings") in order to clarify (afterwards) the sense of an expression to another. "The sky is blue." "Do you mean: we should go surfing? It's not going to rain? or are you just remarking on the brilliant color?" All these concerns of course may not need investigating (either to the Other or myself) based on the context.